Ward churchhill 911 essay

As is the norm in such actions by the U. Supreme Court, no reason was given for declining the case. The Colorado board fired Churchill after a faculty panel found that he committed repeated, intentional scholarly misconduct. Churchill denied the misconduct, but much of his appeal focused not on the merits of the misconduct charges per se, but on whether the university's investigations into him were unconstitutionally influenced by a desire to punish his controversial political views. The issue was tricky for many academics who were involved in the case, who said that they knew Churchill's views were controversial and believed he had committed scholarly misconduct.

To cite a metaphor used in one of the faculty reports on Churchill: If a police officer doesn't like the bumper sticker on a driver's car and so stops the driver for speeding, is a ticket justified as long as the driver was really speeding? Faculty members who participated in the reviews of Churchill differed on the role of the bumper sticker, and whether he should be fired, but the panels all agreed that Churchill had been speeding -- multiple times. Churchill had a long career teaching and writing at Colorado about Native American history -- and delivering lectures on college campuses nationwide -- when he became the focus of attention outside of the academic and Native American activist worlds in That year, Churchill was scheduled to speak at Hamilton College.

Hamilton stood by its invitation, on academic freedom grounds, but in the end called off the appearance, based on threats of violence. As the University of Colorado considered what to do, a series of accusations against Churchill started to come in that involved his scholarly practices. Churchill repeatedly has portrayed his critics as conservatives, but some of those who brought complaints were scholars who have done considerable work in Native American history, frequently exposing the various wrongs inflicted on Indians by the U.

Ward Churchill - RationalWiki

Charges that were made against Churchill and ultimately verified by three separate faculty panels included plagiarism, false descriptions of other scholars' work or historical evidence, and fabrications. That set up the various reviews of his work that ultimately led to his dismissal. Along the way Churchill became the academic whom some conservatives loved to hate. On David Horowitz's website, which features dozens of articles about Churchill, the feelings about him are so strong that the ultimate insult for an academic appears to be covered with a headline that dubs someone "Worse Than Ward Churchill.

But other academics, including some sympathetic to Churchill's politics, declined to back him.


  • Recommended For You;
  • economics extended essay;
  • Supreme Court rejects appeal from Ward Churchill!

When some professors tried to get the Modern Language Association to condemn Churchill's firing in , the organization's Delegate Assembly agreed only to criticize how the investigation started, and declined to take a stance on his dismissal. This action followed speeches by professors who noted that faculty members reviewed the charges against Churchill, and that they appeared to have considerable evidence of misconduct.


  • Ward Churchill - RationalWiki.
  • Ward churchhill essay;
  • Professor ward churchill essay PuneICAI - Pune Branch Of WIRC.

In Churchill's brief seeking a Supreme Court review of the case, Churchill's lawyers argued that he was the victim of "bad faith investigations, undertaken in retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment. It was also clear at the time that the investigation would violate the First Amendment by stigmatizing Professor Churchill and harming his reputation," the brief said.

Colorado's brief urging the Supreme Court not to hear the case focused on how the initial investigation Churchill objected to didn't take any action against him. Rather, the university noted, it was subsequent inquires -- governed by faculty rules and led by faculty committees -- that found Churchill had committed misconduct. Further, the brief argues that principles of academic freedom rely on such processes, and that courts should defer to academic judgment on such questions. Failure to do so, the brief argued, would make it impossible for faculty panels to act without fear of constant litigation.

Yet, in contrast to other settings, preventing intimidation and retaliatory lawsuits is especially important in decisions involving academic misconduct in higher education," the university's brief said. Bruce Benson, president of the university system, and Phil DiStefano, chancellor of the Boulder campus, issued a joint statement after the U.

Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Supreme Court has declined to hear Mr. Churchill's appeal and that the matter is now over," they said. This ruling is a victory for the thousands of men and women on our faculty who live up to that obligation and for the students who benefit from their professionalism.

David A. Lane, Churchill's lawyer, said via e-mail: "It's a sad day for the First Amendment and free speech when the regents of the University of Colorado act like they are above the law and the United States Supreme Court allows them to get away with it. Thus, the millions lost to the Middle Passage took their places among their myriad Asian and Native American cousins. Intermixed, too, were a great host of others: the thousands of Chinese coolies imported during the nineteenth century, none of them standing "a Chinaman's chance" of surviving the brutal conditions into which they were impressed while laying track for America's railroads and digging its deep shaft mines throughout the Wesk78 the millions of children consigned in each generation to grinding poverty and truncated life spans across America's vast sprawl of ghettoes, barrios, Indian reservations and migrant labor campa79 millions upon millions more assigned the same or worse in the neo-colonies of the Third World, the depths of their misery dictated by an unremitting demand for super profits with which to fuel America's "economic miracle.

Why should "they" hate "us"? The very question is on its face absurd, delusional, revealing of an aggregate detachment from reality so virulent in its evasiveness as to be deemed clinically pathological. Setting aside the wholly-contrived "confusion" professed in the aftermath as to who might be properly included under the headings "we" and "they, the sole legitimate query that might have been posed on was--and remains--"How could 'they' possibly not hate 'us'?

On Matters of Balance, Proportion and "Security". There can be no defensible suggestion that those who attacked the Pentagon and WTC on 1 were seeking to "get even" with the U. Still less is there a basis for claims that they "started" something, or that U.

Quite the contrary. For the attackers to have arguably "evened the score" for Iraqi's dead children alone, it would have been necessary for them to have killed a hundred times the number of Americans who actually died. The U. Hence, for the attackers to have achieved a proportionally equivalent impact, it would have been necessary that they kill some 7. Even this does not apprehend the reality at issue.

Navigation menu

For a genuine parity of proportional impact to obtain, it would have been necessary for the attackers to have killed 7. To inflict an overall parity of suffering for what has been done to Iraq since taking into account the million-odd dead Iraqi adults--they would have had to kill roughly The instrumentality by which such carnage would have been dispensed would presumably have been not just the three ", pound cruise missiles" employed on September 11,82 but also the other 49, airborne explosives necessary for the attackers to break even in terms of the number of bombs and missiles the U.

The targets, moreover, would not have been restricted to such obvious elements of what America's general staff habitually refer to as "command and control infrastructure" as the Pentagon and the WTC.

Rather the attackers of would have followed the well-established U. Framed in these terms, it is immediately obvious that, were the U.

Indeed, applying such standards of "pay-back" vis-a-vis American Indians alone would require a lethal reduction in the U. It follows that 9-l-l was a mostly symbolic act, a desperate bid to command attention on the part of those so utterly dehumanized and devalued in the minds of average Americans that the very fact of their existence has never been deemed worthy of a moment's contemplation.

On the basis of the September 11 "wake up call"--and perhaps only on this basis--could they position themselves to "send a message" standing the least chance of being heard by the U. Whether it might be understood is an altogether different matter, given the media's predictable, craven and across-the-board compliance with official demands that the attackers' carefully articulated explanations of their actions not be placed before the publiC.

Still, at one level, the message delivered was uncensorably straight forward and simple, assuming the form of a blunt question: "How does it feel? Not since its own Civil War ended in , after all, has the U. How else to explain the popularity of increasingly technicalized military jargon like "kill ratios," "force degradation" and "collateral damage" among the general public?

The attacks of , while certainly designed to inflict the maximum material damage possible, given their very limited scope,92 were even more clearly intended to force U. This brings a second level of the attackers' message into focus. If it could be anticipated that Americans would find it exceedingly painful to undergo a heavy bombing of even the most token sort--as surely they would--it could also be expected that they would begin casting about with considerable urgency for a way of ensuring that such "terrorism" would not be repeated. This, in turn, suggested that U. At base, what the attackers communicated was the proposition that, from now on, if Americans wish their own children to be happy and safe, they are going to have to allow the children of other peoples an equivalent safety and chance for happiness.

In effect, Americans will have to accord a respect for the rights of others equal to that which they demand for themselves, valuing "Other" youngsters as much as they do their own. Unfortunately, this is precisely what the preponderance of Americans have done. Refusing the prospect that the collectivity of their own attitudes and behavior made something like inevitable, they have instead bleated their "innocence" for all to hear, meanwhile reacting like a figurative Jeffrey Dahmer, enraged because the latest of his many hapless victims has displayed the effrontery of slapping his face.

Once again--this time in the name of a "crusade" to "rid the world of evi1"Americans have enthusiastically embraced a policy devolving upon the systematic and potentially massive perpetration of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Make my day.

Ward churchhill 911 essay

A far larger and more destructive wave of suicide bombings? Dispersal of biological or chemical agents?


  1. persuasive essay baseball.
  2. essay about myself topics!
  3. thesis statements about suicide!
  4. Detonation of one or more portable nuclear devices? All of these? The straw-like "option" at which the great majority of Americans are presently grasping in a transparent attempt to restore their sense of exemption from responsibility--the notion that a combination of military force, intelligence gathering and "tightened domestic security" can ultimately immunize them from the consequences of their country's actions or their own inactions --is purely delusional.